About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
FOXNEWS 16
FBC 7
CNN 3
CNNW 3
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 46
Search Results 0 to 45 of about 46 (some duplicates have been removed)
parts of the community? >> but does this, would this give-- what does it mean for, say, susan rice and the administration then? is this, does this help them politically by shielding them or does petraeus here saying i thought it was a terrorist attack, does that mean this puts, for example, susan rice's statements more up to scrutiny? >> well, i think answers the fundamental question, did they deliberately mislead on this case for political reasons because they were driving the narrative that al-qaeda had been decimated and the war, war was receding or a question of incompetence. neither of those two things is good for the administration although it's after the election, so, they can get the consequences. >> let's take a look at the president talking about susan rice, the u.n. ambassador who many think he will nominate to succeed hillary clinton as secretary of state. >> for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> paul:
lindsey graham giving his view of ambassador susan rice and her role in the administration spin on the benghazi terror attacks and the president's reactions to those statements at his first news conference since being reelected. mr. obama, defending ms. rice, but his defense has actually added more to the controversy. senator graham reacted to the president by saying, mr. president, don't think for one minute i don't hold you responsible for benghazi, i think you failed as commander-in-chief before, during and after the attack. so much to get to first on this, jim, the showdown between the two senators, graham and mccain and the president. abc's terry moran called it an obama smackdown. "the washington post" john mccain's benghazi, and some say it's about mccain being bitter about losing to obama four years ago. >> i think five names and a conflagration, and number one petraeus and broadwell and number two, benghazi, benghazi, petraeus, broadwell, military ethics, mccain obama reduction, and fifth, the susan rice story, which life imitates art. if you go back and watch the movie
and why.e all statements that were made by the white house and ambassador susan rice period. catherine herridge learned today that neither the director of national intelligence, nor the acting cia director, was responsible forrepairing preparing a report that partially blamed the benghazi attack on amateurish youtube anti-islam video. they claim the president obama pressed upon the american people and upon the united nations general assembly. he was push hard to explain what caused them to push the youtube video three days after that attack. the chief said simply he was not at the betray -- petraeus briefing and had nothing to say. there was demonstrable and incurable evidence of their involvement and no evidence of anytng other than a terrorist attack. and the administration continued to press its false tale, despite fox news reporting and they reported within 24 hours, u.s. intelligence agencies monomania that the attack was an act of terrorism with ties to al qaeda, but had also identified and located one of the leaders of the attak. despite warnings hours before, state department e
, the talking points of susan rice saw in the next 48 hours before she appeared on the sunday talk shows said it was mob violence and video. what do you make of that, tucker? >> this was the big revelation of the day as far as i can tell. it's not clear that susan rice didn't see the original talking points, but the administration conceded today all, but conceded, said, flat-out, we know that al-qaeda was involved, and the term al-qaeda was listed in the origin tell againintelligen and taken out. and the administration says al-qaeda or affiliates classified information, so they had to be scrubbed from what was given to congress. and even if you accept that's a legitimate operating procedure, you have to acknowledge that they've intentionally misled, susan rice-- >> who is they? >> susan rice, but clearly the cia knew this. it's inconceivable that the american ambassador to the united nations was sent out on television with totally incomplete information, with talking points that had been basically scrubbed and having no knowledge of what was originally in them. >> is it clear that susan rice
for sending his ambassador to the united nations. susan rice out to the fund it -- sunday talk-show host five days after benghazi and four false statements about the cause of those attacks. the president holding his first press conference in front of the white house press corps since march 6th book, and he made a lot of news in doing so. president obama admitted the erroneous statements delivered by ric on five talk shows five days after four americans were killed in an gauzy were at his order, and one of the most defiant tone as we have heard, obama defended rice and invited congress and his critics to come after him instead of her. >> she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that have been provided to her. and senator mccain and grmm and others want to go after somebody , they should go after me. when they go after the u.n. ambassador aparently because they think she is an easy target and have a problem with me. lou: the administrion blamed in gauzy on the flash mobs and cited the video on youtube. it was revealed
points used by susan rice and in the classified talking points which had a completely different set of conclusions in terms of who did this, when they did it, how they did it. so i think we're left with more confusion, if, in fact, the article by eric schmidt in "the new york times" is correct it would indicate that these unclassified talking points had a specific purpose to deceive the american people, but more importantly to deceive al qaeda so that they could continue to monitor their communications. so i think there are still a lot of questions out there, and i'm not sure the last couple of days have clarified much. >> fascinating. let me turn to you nick, depending again when you talk to, there you have a top general saying it's gotten a lot muddier. it's just the danger when you have the need to keep stuff classified because you're going off to certain groups who may have done this and sending people off to ambassador rice to >> in some ways, mark is right it has gotten muddier. at the end of the day while it is clear that security is inadequate in benghazi and while it's clea
that the intelligence report went to susan rice other than what you named the consulate or dip the maic facility. what do you make of that? >> well, what is the issue that has been raised as a result of that? i think we all know the intelligence community had created the talking points that did come out about the incident that occurred. the purpose is to make sure that any information or that they would give to the media would not be classified. i think that's how a lot of these issues with the talking points started and the issue that's been raised in the last couple of days has been the issue of having al qaeda taken out of the talking points and putting extremists in there. my answer to that is that the analysts who would have made those different changes and you have the intelligence committee that is analyzed and they give it to the administration or us. what happened in that situation is there are some who have said that by taking the word al qaeda out and putting extremist that changed the content. i don't see it that way. i think extremist covers a lot of different individuals and not only ter
is is who exexunged the al qaeda terrorism line before it was given to susan rice and she was sent out on those five sunday morning talk shows to say no it was actually a film and a riot gone bad. so as you know there were a couple of senators who say that they have lost faith with susan rice. that she went out and said something misleading. but the president, at his first press conference since being reelected said, please, don't blame her, in fact, he went so far to say she had nothing to do -- knee knew nothing about benghazi. she had nothing to do with benghazi. here he is defending susan rice. >> she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> so. >> okay. then why the heck did you send her out there? she knew nothing about what happened. petraeus was in washington. several other high ranking officials who knew what happened were in washington. if you want us to go after you, then
mccain in criticizing the potential nomination of susan rice, criticizing that nomination on the basis of ambassador rice's role in explaining what happened in the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. now nbc's andrea mitchell is reporting tonight that the acting director of the cia is going to be joining ambassador rice in person for that meeting tomorrow with those critical senators. we'll keep you posted if we learn more about this breaking news tonight. but the long and short of this is, number one, the acting cia director getting involved in resolving the factual matters that have been contested by republican senators, and two, we have the strongest signal we have had yet about who the president will likely nominate to replace hillary clinton. the highest profile position in the cabinet, alongside the attorney general, but it's big news in politics and big news in terms of american diplomacy. cabinet nominations are not always fights. but in this case, a susan rice secretary of state nomination is something that some republicans have said they would love to have
was asked about susan rice being the person that went out on point, on that sunday following the attacks. why the ambassador from the united nations would be the person, not the director of national intelligence, not the cia director, not the national security director. the secretary safety or the vice-president, but the u.n. ambassador and when asked and challenged about her testimony, this is what the president said and then i'm going to get your reaction to it. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me, but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> mike: now, to quote shakespeare, me thinks the man doth protest too much. and to me a legitimate question and then go after senators graham and mccain. >> a little paternalistic and left out one of the senators, a senator kelly ayotte who happens to be a female and i find it instructive that he left her out of his cri
susan rice. he does not know who the author of the final version was and these talking points would be uses as the basis for the statements on sunday talk shows on september 16th that this was spontaneous event and linked to the anti-islam video. lawmakers said they wanted to stay very focused on the attack itself and not the former director's personal problems. >> human nature is what it is but the intent going we'll limit the conversation to the events of 9/11 and forward throughout the rest of the, six, eight weeks ensued since the attacks on our consulate. >> reporter: in addition to what's unfolding here on capitol hill fox news separately has confirmed the cia has begun a preliminary investigation into the former director's tenure at the cia. that would include whether any cia assets or materials if you will were used to facilitate this affair or alleged affair with his biographer, paula broadwell, bill. bill: a lot of people look at this on the outside and look at today as a day where you might be able to settle some things but in all honesty how much will be settled after to
attacks on ambassador susan rice are simply wrong. she had to rely on the intelligence that was provided. ultimately state department personnel have to rely on the intelligence reports they are given. susan rice' integrity, capacity and record are beyond question. >> now, president... obamga has the call to float the name as possible secretary of state, the name of the person who was the actual vehicle used to misinform the american people during this crisis. >> greta: a new internal cia investigation of dave petraeus. a week ago, he resigned after the extra-marital affair with paula broadwell. but today, the sex scandal got weirder. jill kelley told a reporter she had breakfast at the white house on september 28. the claim has not been verified. john bolton is here. good evening, sir. >> good evening. >> greta: first, your overall thought about what transpired on capitol hill, in terms of the release behind closed doors today? >> well, i think the most interesting testimony that has leaked out -- do i have faith the rest of it will leak out in due course, is that the director of nationa
that information, susan rice either didn't have it or use it when she went on the talk shows sunday. >> mike: one of the questions is, who is the they? are we closer to knowing that? did this go to the white house? was this done within the internal operations of the cia, at the state department? did you -- can you give us insight as to who it was who authorized and put their hands to the document and said we've got to scratch this out? >> no, sir we can't that. is a subtragedy to a larger tragedy that government can scrub out salient relevant information and we are no closer to knowing who did it and why. i suspect we know why. we are no closer to knowing who. i would say we've had two hearings now, one closed and one open. we have only just begun. i understand the need to have closed door hearings for classified information. but this is the same administration that wants to try terrorists in open court, with full discovery in front of the media in new york city. we are going to have open hearings as soon as we get back as soon as the new congress is convened. we are going to have open hearings t
first testified and briefed capitol hill and apparently after ambassador susan rice made those comments. >> that's why it's so significant, it also came after ambassador rice's appearance on the sunday shows, where she is now being grilled by john mccain and others. i'm talking to him in a few minutes. so it's very significant i think what general petraeus believed at the time. it does beg a belief, really, why would ambassador rice go on national television, having had a briefing we believe from the cia, which turned out to be flawed if the director of the cia right away knew this was an al qaeda affiliated group? >> yeah, you know, it's washington, isn't it. i mean, you know, the theory, what petraeus is expected to talk about is he had his talking points. he got them declassified, approved to go out there in public. when ambassador rice started talking from her talking points, this included other information that wasn't exactly what the cia thought might be really going on. i think some members of capitol hill have brought it down to this point, was the obama administration incredibl
to something that was just asked. about susan rice. if she was to go before a confirmation hearing -- >> for you i'll break the hypothetical rule. >> nobody 0 else. >> thank you. if she were to go before a senate confirmation hearing could she answer questions with a simple yes? are questions answerable? >> i'm not sure what you're asking, april. again, i'm not going to speculate about personnel matters and who will or will not be participating in nomination hearings. you know, i can tell you that the president believes that ambassador rice has done an excellent job, as the united states ambassador to the united nations, and i believe that -- and i know that he believes that everyone here working for him has been transparent and in the way that we've tried to answer questions about what happened in benghazi and going back to briefings that we had again and again, that the information that we provided was based on the available assessments at the time, and as those assessments evolved and became more detailed and clear we provided additional information, and that was certainly true
with the nomination of susan rice, given all the revelations by david petraeus today before the senate and house. first want to bring you up-to-date on what is happening in the middle east and israel appears closer to a possible ground operation in gaza. the israelis have ordered up another 45,000 reservists. they are on standby now, and that is an additional 75,000 total reserves that are now massing on the border wth gaza. the israelis are vowing to intensy the air strikes on the gaza strip, that after palestinian -- palstinian -- palestinian militants targeted tel aviv. , says no fired more than 450 rockets at israel over the past three days. at least 23 palestinians have been reported killed in the fighting along with three israelis. the violence straining israeli relations with egypt. the senate's prime minister, not its promise to the president, prime nister to gaza to show solidarity with the palestinians and to, some say, a broker truce. moments ago men yahoo called president obama to discuss option for the escalating the crisis. that is the latest there. let's return to the "a-team". i
out the term al-qaeda and inserted extremist in the talking points that went to eventually susan rice and told americans? who edited those talking points? that was the question given to david petraeus on friday, no answer there. >> clayton: we thought we'd get it, so friday we didn't get it. thought maybe saturday, we didn't get it. sunday, no answer, but new insight into exactly some of the editing process done with the talking points and a statement from the white house deputy national security advisor, ben rose, the only edit made by the white house and state department was to change the word consulate to the word diplomatic facility. those are two words. since the facility in benghazi was not formally a consulate. we were presented with points, and the only edit made by the white house was the factual edit how to refer to the facility. no mention though of removing al-qaeda and putting in the term extremist. so still we have a gray area, something in between the white house and the intelligence community somebody edited it. >> so petraeus testified on friday, al-qaeda was a part o
to be circling the wagons around the u.n. ambassador susan rice and the president. >> it's one of the most unfair attacks i've ever seen in washington in 34 years. susan rice was using the unclassified talking points which were provided by the intelligence community. they were a consensus report. >> i don't know what the democrats and the white house are trying to hide. and general petraeus and general clap said the intelligence community in it's entirety signed off on the talking points and went back to the administration and when they came back, key language was changed. >> ambassador rice used the changed points on the talk shows five days after the attack, harris. >> harris: i'm listening closely and hearing that they went to the administration. well, doug, that could technically mean the white house, the national security council, the state department, or many other entities. is there any one component of the administration coming under special scrutiny at this point? >> well, as of today, yes, there is. as you heard representative mike rogers chairman of the house intelligence committee for
in the national briefing that mentioned al-qaida. and by the time susan rice went on the sunday, infamous appearances on the sunday talk shows, that was deleted from her brief. >> if that is true, mr. president, who provided that brief? what was in the information. it is not adding up and a reason why twos after the attack we still have more questions than answers. and the white house has not come clean and should come with everything they have and make it readly available. give worries to the familis and provide justice by capturing those people. nthank you. >> my next guest knows about living in constant peril. ambassador paul brimmer. former administrative of iraq. how shocked were you when you heard about the petraeus sex scandal and do you believe it had anything to do with the proibs was benghazi gate? >> i was shocked obvious lie. i worked with general petraeus when he was in iraq and i was in iraq, and the idea that he would in some fashion tailor his testimony to congress, seems to be unlikely knows the man. and so i was shocked by has personal failures but i don't fall for the i
: congressman, one of the concerns that you have, of course, when u.n. ambassador susan rice kept talking about spontaneous reaction to that anti-islam video, which was only a teaser, actually, a trailer, so having said that, now that you're moving forward, what does this entire matter say about the status of our intelligence community and the fact that someone went in and changed the status of what the intelligence community had concluded and that was in fact on the initial report, and david petraeus himself who also visited libya, the only u.s. leader who actually go there, a top official and return and say on his initial reaction he thought and knew that it was a terrorist attack? >> well, and that's the issue, and look, our intelligence community did a phenomenal job in putting together and synthesizing the information. this is no indictment on intelligence community. what was released from cia headquarters on friday, unclassified talking point memo to the point it was changed to the sunday morning talk shows there's a gap of 48 hours we need to account for and understand why it was changed
circulated to other agencies. earlier today, lawmakers said that ambassador susan rice who said on the sunday talk show that benghazi was in response to an anti-islam video and a demonstration that spun out of control was simply using the best available intelligence at the time. >> what is very clear is that ambassador rice used the talking points that the intelligence committee had all signed off on. that is very, very clear. she used the unclassified talking points that were signed off on by the entire intelligence committee. criticisms of her are completely unwarranted. >> critics say that ten days after the attack, director petraeus make clear to lawmakers today that there was absolutely no dow that benghazi was a terrorist attack could after the 21st of september, president obama went on tv and was reluctant to use the word terrorism when he was asked specifically whether benghazi qualified as an attack by al qaeda. cheryl: i have a quick question before we let you go. one of the things with how this handled was appearance. using the underground tunnels. hiding him from the crush of the
th and invited clinton to testify then. meanwhile u.n. secretary susan rice is the top candidate to replace clinton when she leaves her post. despite the controversy surrounding rice's response to the benghazi terror attacks. current and former white house officials say rice is still close with the president and shares his views on foreign policy. well, two different countries, two very different stories. iran's defense minister now claiming that two iranian planes did shoot at a u.s. drone over the persian gulf. iran claims the drone was within its airspace when fired upon. the white house has said the drone was flying in international airspace. the unmanned drone was not damaged. >> lady liberty lighting up new york harbor for the first time since super storm sandy hit. the statue serves as a beacon of hope for other storm victims. liberty island was badly damaged during the storm. bring and stone walkways were torn up and docks ripped apart. power is also out. so crews are using a temporary lighting system powered by generators to light up the statue. it is shut down indefinit
points to susan rice directly in the chain of command with the state department and turned out to be totally misleading and secretary clinton and general petraeus are both essential witnesses. >> how run of the people that finds petraeus's fishy or-- >> i find the whole story, how it was a fbi matter, investigated so many months and election night that the fbi suddenly realized it involved david petraeus. they're investigating it for three or four months, it's the first thing that he they found out. if they found it out, immediately brought it to the president's attention, a matter of national security. none of it adds up, if it does, the most amazing sense of security. >> alisyn: a congressional race between allen west and his challenger, why an emergency meeting this morning. the so-called fat cats not holding much weight. the law that was supposed to save people had a side effect. that's coming up. ♪ [ whistle blowing ] where do you hear that beat? campbell's healthy request soup lets you hear it... in your heart. [ basketball bouncing ] heart healthy. great taste. mmm...
Search Results 0 to 45 of about 46 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)